Channels Home Ancient History (BC) Ancient History (AD) Classical Age Middle Ages Age of Absolutism Age of Exploration Reformation Renaissance Revolutions Canadian History World Wars Cold War Current History 19th Century 20th Century General Resources Book Reviews Anecdotes Quotations Misc. Links Message Board

Capital Punishment Speech delivered on 11/11 The Ides of Science Our Environment Climate Change Sir Wilfrid Laurier In Defense of History Response to a hypothetical pro-capital punishment bill in Canada's Parliament by Arnold Engel In 1948, world leaders came together to draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It stipulated that, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Supported by Canada, the document pledges inalienable human rights for all people of the world. Canada’s own Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly outlines every citizen’s right to life, liberty and security of person in Section VII. Last week however, these two sacred documents were challenged in the House of Commons as the Reinstitution of Capital Punishment Bill was discussed. The bill had considerable support, not based on its academic or law enforcement merits, but rather on the heels of a wave of gun-related deaths throughout the continent. Canada does not need a quick fix but rather a calculated strategy to stem the tide of crime. Further reflection, on our crime statistics, paints a different picture; homicides have decreased by over 44% since 1976, the year that state sanctioned murders were outlawed. In addition, the number of reported homicides has fallen every year for the past three years. In Canada as well as around the world, there is no credible scientific evidence that crime rates are positively affected by the death penalty or that crime increases after the abolition of the penalty. The Canadian government should strive to set an example for the country and for the world. By reinstating capital punishment, we would be championing the philosophy of an eye for an eye. This only instructs our children that it is acceptable to use violence to solve problems. The government would stand dangerously close to establishing a standard for militant vigilantes to take the law into their own hands. If the state can mechanically discard its perceived problems like waste what prevents civilians from following their lead? Canada would have to forfeit its well-established stance on human rights, if we reinstated the death penalty, because no longer would we be a beacon for personal rights and freedoms. A decision to succumb to the barbaric punishment would certainly not go unnoticed on the world stage. It has been said that the death penalty prevents crimes from happening. The deterrence argument has been refuted by many major studies most importantly the survey conducted by the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996. That report sought a relation between the death penalty and homicide rates and concluded; “Research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment and such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis..." The aforementioned statistics on the homicide rates in Canada further disclaim the deterrent hypothesis. The death penalty is the most outrageous form of justice, as it does not deal with criminals fairly or on the basis of their crime. Instead, it makes examples of convicts, which is quite possibly the greatest travesty of justice ever. Nowhere in any criminal code in the land does the law make room for any example made of criminals and yet it is done regularly. Judges, prosecutors and jurists strive at times to take stands on issues when it comes to sentencing, not in any attempt to deal with the perpetrator but instead to prevent a similar crime from reoccurring. It is a bone-chilling fact that in a society with a death penalty it is normal to send a prisoner to death as an unwilling martyr on behalf of the justice system. The possibility of executing innocent people cannot be ignored when examining the death penalty. In the state of Illinois, Governor George Ryan called for a moratorium on the death penalty after the 13th death row inmate in 23 years was exonerated. Governor Ryan, a supporter of the penalty, admitted that he could not support such a punishment because he was not entirely sure that those still to be executed were guilty. Mistakes happen in every justice system, which makes it utterly illogical to adopt an irrevocable punishment into our laws. Behind the moral arguments stands the economic ramification of the penalty. The government would need to equip several penitentiaries with the equipment to perform murder and train personnel to carry out cold-blooded executions. The strain on the justice system to deal with the increase in the number of appeals would demand large fiscal consideration. It would certainly be less burdensome to support lifetime prisoners under our current system rather than simply slaughter them under a new one. The death penalty would not eliminate the dross of society as its supporters claim but rather it would erase Canada’s human rights record and propagate violence throughout our land by setting the wrong sort of example. It would make a mockery of justice and turn the courts into coordinated symphonies of revenge and emotion instead of parlours of rights and fairness. The reinstatement of the death penalty would be an unfathomable retourne-en-arrière for the Canadian legal system. Speech delivered on 11/11: A Commentary on War by Arnold Engel This is a Day of Remembrance – a celebration of liberty. We stand here in the name of freedom. Today, we remember our core values and pledge to protect them. Freedom of speech and the power to be heard must remain as the touchstones of our existence. Liberty, justice, equality, fraternity and tolerance shape our lives. These are the sacred rights of our society. It is these values that separated us from Nazi Germany, and it is these values that separate us from the Taliban. Throughout history, wars were waged to protect these rights. The French Revolution, the American Civil War, and the Second World War all stand out as examples of forging ahead in our protection of these ideals. Young men marched off to war – and were swallowed whole by military juggernauts. We all hold the utmost respect for those men and women who are the protectors of our values. Their work and the work of their predecessors throughout our history has bought us our innocence by keeping war away from Canadian soil. We must remember those who fought, lest we forget what they fought for. We must realize that whenever and wherever these main values are under attack – they are under attack everywhere. For how can we be truly free when those around us are enslaved? And how can we be at peace when our neighbours are at war? Wars create vacuums only to be filled with further conflicts. War causes hate and hate causes war. The cycle is a virus – it must be stamped out before it spreads. In 1928, world leaders came together to ban war completely. In one year, 54 countries signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact. This hardly stopped aggression. Within several years, Japan invaded Manchuria and Italy expanded its African Empire and then; in 1939, the world went to war. If there is anything that we can draw from this lesson it is that change must come from within. The act of remembrance must be a proactive one. It must be more than a yearly homage to peace, for, if we are truly dedicated, the problems that we face can be overcome. The world’s answer to all this is us – youth. We must constantly revive the ideals of peace, justice, liberty, freedom, fraternity, equality and tolerance. We must champion them wherever we go and in whatever we do. Never, forget these. It is only if we instill the ever important core values in everyone – and have those values resonate with more passion than any hatred – no matter how bitter – that we will be successful in achieving a truly lasting peace. There will be obstacles in this struggle – but our love of these ideals and our commitment to them will dispel any challenge. You might think that this struggle is futile; but it is not. To quote Robert F. Kennedy, “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” You might wish to follow the familiar road of comfort and personal ambition and financial success – available to all of you in the room today. This, is not the path history has marked for us. Like it or not, we now live in interesting times, times filled with uncertainties and the undiscovered. We will be judged, not in any traditional sense, but by our contribution to building a greater society around us. Theodore Roosevelt once said, “Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win great triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.” The enemy of justice is silence – and the enemies of peace are apathy and indifference. We need to care, we need to act. The ultimate sacrifices of soldiers must be remembered. These men will not have died in vain. The Ides of Science: Is science always for the good? by Arnold Engel Since the discovery of fire and the invention of hand tools, mankind has never ceasing to progress in the field of science. Though the study has undoubtedly changed over the millennia, evolving from the most basic physics to alchemy to mathematics to aerospace to subatomic particle analysis, the concept of human curiosity and the desire to know and understand has changed very little. As a people, we still look over the horizon and ask what lies beyond and we still question what we cannot see and touch. The march of scientific progress has been marked with tremendous leaps forward. However, science has not always been used to further noble goals and has been bogged down in both selfishness and utter silliness. The idea of critically analyzing and dissecting technological and scientific advances remains important in order to ensure that as a society we prioritize our endeavors. It seems that ever increasingly frivolous science eats away at much needed research for more important and pressing societal needs. The good of any science should be the greater social good that it presents to society and its entire population. We all know of inventions or scientific improvements that we could do without, for example, the electric can-opener. Now, in all honesty, there is absolutely no justifiable need for any normal human being to use such a ludicrous machine to open a can of meat sauce or tuna. The manual can-openers work perfectly well and are portable, lightweight, small and can fit in a drawer without any problem. Contrast this with the clunky, ugly, loud, big, dangerous (don’t put your fingers near it), electricity guzzling pile of metal that performs a function in marginally less time than the manual opener. An Internet search yielded a web page that advertised its new portable and cordless handheld can-opener by touting not only its ergonomic grip but also its dishwasher safe blade. All this for $37.95 (US). In this case, scientific progress has become muddled in consumerism and novelty items, which not only contribute little to society but indeed tarnish scientific progress itself. The resources, both monetary and intellectual, that develop these can-openers and electric toothbrushes could be better spent on worthy projects that could advance society. In the medical field, we find another paradigm of wasted scientific research and resources. Elective cosmetic surgery incorporates complicated medical techniques that help patients look better or younger according to their desires. The technological advancements do not contribute to the good of society but mostly (granted there are a small number of cases covered by Medicare deemed to be essential) provide an artificial service for those with the money to spend. The scientific research that gets piled into the industry that has been spawned from these treatments could easily be used towards more practical means. Proponents of these treatments claim that they boost self-confidence and make people happier. Lets get clear here: getting cured of cancer makes people feel happy and good about themselves. This surgery, which produces few positive aspects and creates elements of jealousy and envy, does more harm than good. In the field of transportation, scientific progress often seeks to improve dangerous situations. However, with the development of the Concorde, the fastest civilian aircraft, mankind has eschewed safety in the face of speed. We are now able to fly from London to New York and save several hours. But can we really say the massive resources that were thrown at this problem have resulted in the best possible outcome. Though progress has resulted in faster planes – would society not be better off with safer air travel? It must not only be a question of good but in this case whether the scientific progress has generated the greatest good. Sometimes, the invention encompasses both the good and the bad creating very interesting paradoxes. The man of the same name invented the Guillotine, in order to make executions less painful. This goal was accomplished and resulted in what can be construed as scientific progress, while it also created another effect. The Guillotine made the business of execution much simpler and as a result – along with other factors to be sure – with the dramatic rise in executions during the period of the French Revolution. The invention, in this case, was humane because it enabled a fairly painless death. On the other hand, because of its inception, more people perished. There are also examples of how science was used deliberately to achieve malevolent goals. International Business Machines (IBM), a forerunner the earliest computer technology, certainly used its technology in the most despicable of means. In the thirties and forties, IBM sold, serviced, and trained operators for machines that were sold to Nazi Germany. These tabulators, sorters, and punch cards were used to classify the millions of people that were herded into concentration camps. The technology was also used to help manage the masses of humanity that would enter the camps. In the Dachau camp, there were a total of twenty-four IBM machines. If anything, the Nazi regime prided itself on its efficiency – achieved in part due to the scientific and technological aid that IBM provided. Perhaps if these machines were not available – the killing machines may have had at least one less victim. More than any other example, this proves that science can facilitate evil. The perversion of scientific ideals transcends the ages – often with negative side effects. Just look at dynamite sticks or nuclear warheads. Often inventions transmogrify into new applications that their inventors had either never imagined or wished to further. When Alfred Nobel invented the dynamite stick, he thought it would be used to help on construction sites to facilitate the clearing of land for railroads. Never did he think that his discovery would lead to explosives used to kill people in large numbers. Similarly, Albert Einstein’s discoveries in nuclear physics were meant to provide society with cheap and clean energy, yet with that came the atomic bomb that was dropped on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Scientific progress has often resulted in the perversion of the original ideals of the scientist. The debate on whether there is essential good in some sciences and technology continues to rage in our current society. At this point in our history, we are still unaware of the long-term consequences of genetically modified foods. Scientific progress in this area of bioengineering has led to more crop yields and more nutrient rice. However, it has also produced new viruses and diseases that could wipe out many species of wildlife. We stand at a crossroads on this issue. The progress that we make creates positive results but the side effects can be dangerous and many are still unknown. It may be too early to tell exactly who stands to gain from these advances but there are many who espouse the view that the scientific progress in this area is anything but good. Let’s examine another pressing issue, this time in the music industry. In the past few years with the invention of the compact disc “burner” or copier and the rampant proliferation of music on the internet, songs can now be downloaded and burned onto CD’s with considerably less cost than the traditional way of collecting music. As consumers, we all rejoice over the notion that we will no longer need to shell out enormous amounts of cash and we can still get an unlimited supply of music. However, the giant music festival created by the technology certainly doesn’t help everyone. The artists who make the music, the managers, the producers, the technicians, the publicists, the retailers, the distributors and the government all lose money whenever a CD that otherwise would have been bought, stays on the shelf. Since the music companies are set to make less money because of these advances, they consider this particular scientific advance to be not all that constructive. The fast pace of progress often causes problems for people who simply cannot cope with the technology. As a society, we can rarely judge the impact of a scientific advance. In the forties, experts estimated a total world market of maybe ten computers. In the early eighties, tech gurus prognosticated that there might be 900,000 cellular phones by the year 2000. Today, there are over 70 million. The future of technology and science is indeed uncertain, however, we must remain analytic and cautious in our approach. Science belongs to no one. Scientific formulae are constantly in flux. The work of a scientist may be tinkered by hundreds of others and so the morals, ethics and ideals may change with the wind. We can therefore, never hold science to complete absolutes. To say that scientific progress is always and undeniably for the good of society is simply false. Let us not create illusions where a reality exists. Speech on our Environment by Arnold Engel When I was 10 years old, I was introduced to the exploitation of child labourers. Being what I would describe as a “morally aware child” – I sought to fight for the rights of children around the world through an organization called Free the Children. At 12, I traveled to Geneva to address the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. I spent a week talking to former child labourers from all over the world – an experience that I still remember vividly to this day. My research for the UN position paper was predicated on the premise that children need what I called the triangle for success; access to adequate schools, access to health services and some form of moderate economic stability. But then my train of thought came to a screeching halt. I discovered that one underlying principle was belied by the triangle, that of environmental factors. In Asia alone, three million people die each year from the effects of pollution. Sweatshops are far more likely to kill via the pollution they expel than the horrific working conditions they entertain. In fact, a sustainable and healthy environment is a prerequisite for positive and sustainable growth – both economic and personal, not only for the protection of child labourers but for all of us in the human family. Upon this realization, I refocused my efforts with the ethos that rectifying our negligence of the earth must take precedence before we can address any major social issues. In the earth, we find our salvation. The ground exudes our common spirit. Our tears fill the oceans. Mankind and our planet are inextricably linked – we breathe and the earth exhales. Billions of organisms have evolved on earth for thousands of millennia; all culminating in the fragile balance that is life. In nature, we see the most wonderful examples of teamwork and co-operation; animals interacting symbiotically in order to survive. The earth remains our greatest treasure, and we must fulfill our obligations as its stewards. I could stand up here and fill the room with statistics purporting to the loss of the rainforest or global warming or genetically modified foods or salmon depletion or land mines or any range of hot-button environmental problems. But they are secondary and less important in the face of the fundamental cause of our mistreatment of the planet. Think of it as one big tree. If the roots are poisoned – it is futile to try and cure the branches; we must target the roots. Understand this basic notion: we do not live on Earth – we are part of Earth. We exist simply out of its kindness; in essence, it has bestowed on us the greatest favour of all – the sustenance of life. We shadow a mere speck of dust on the timeline of its magnificent history. In the past, the course we set for ourselves was to claw away at the environment. Now we have become more aware but no less harmful. We continually try to contain nature to the nth degree. Walk down the streets of a suburban neighborhood. Green grass spurts while dogs dutifully sniff the cacophony of smells. Needless to say – grass doesn’t magically appear in suburbia. In fact, in Arizona, homeowners need to –get this- professionally irrigate their lawns in order for their grass to grow. Our green lawns represent a fundamental indicator of our desire to master and control nature. – in essence use it and enjoy it. Man has always wanted to conquer the elements, be it the early trappers of this nation or the Everest climbers. We must realize the interconnectedness of our actions. Every year during early June, my dog gets sick from pesticides. Every year, at least one lawn that my dog frequents contains a toxic substance. Surely, if it is enough to contaminate my poor dog; then it must be doing terrors on the microorganisms of the soil and therefore just hurting the lawn in the long run. It is a sad comment that someone would value the beautification of greenery above the health of the earth. Believe me, I am not trying to play eco-evangelist here. Hallelujah! But the evidence is all around us. We all could do more for the environment. I could have driven here – instead I took a plane from Montreal, basically negating all the pollution saving I do when I walk to school every day. I also waste precious water every time I take a shower, by letting the water run until the temperature is just right. North Americans as a whole are huge consumers. A North American child born right now will, throughout a lifetime, consume as many resources as fifteen – yes fifteen - Third World children. Our attitude towards the environment suffocates the very principle that we need to be conscientious keepers of the earth. Two years ago – at the end of a camping trip in the Temagami area of northern Ontario, I happened upon a sawmill. Nothing that I had seen before prepared me for the rows and rows and rows of cut timber stacked high in a vast clearing. The image has stuck with me ever since – I had just enjoyed nine days in arguably some of Canada’s most beautiful lands and then I was broad-sided with the harrowing picture of destruction masked by commercial enterprise. The starkness of the wood was shockingly artificial. It is very difficult to describe what went through my mind when I saw the sawmill, but the experience definitely altered my view of the world around me. This year, while perusing the writings of Henry David Thoreau, I found myself returning again and again to one passage; “In wildness is the preservation of the world.” I now feel as though it aptly describes my feelings on that sunny July day. Somehow, my world and your world was attacked that day – in a calculated lifeless manner. The earth, on that day, like this one, faced destruction. On the other hand, maybe our hearts are already in the right place. 3 out of 4 Americans claim to be environmentalists. More visitors cram our Provincial and National Parks than ever before. What solutions can we offer? We must adopt a new philosophy on the environment and begin to see issues in a different light. We must seek simple solutions to our complex and large-scale environmental problems. To quote Antoine de St.-Exupéry: In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away, when a body has been stripped down to its nakedness. We must place both our bodies and minds squarely in the face of this struggle. Let our lungs cry out for clean air. Let our legs itch to be walking. Let our stomachs growl for organic and non-modified foods. Let our arms deliver seedlings back into the earth. Let our heads innovate with Mother Nature in mind. And let our feet stand up for the environment. Climate change is having devastating effects throughout the planet. What should we be doing about it? by Arnold Engel Climate change is having devastating effects throughout the planet. What should we be doing about it? In our world today, climate change manifests itself in a myriad of different ways. Whether the El Niño phenomena, severe flooding, glacial melting, or desertification, the world’s weather analysts find themselves in complete disarray. The causes of this climatic catastrophe still raise questions; for example, scientists cannot definitively determine the causes of our newfound heat. Some claim that the rise in temperature averages centers solely around natural fluctuations that have occurred many times in our planet’s past. Others cite flaws in the technology we use in our analysis of temperature. Another major theory heaps the blame on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS) and other greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, whose chemical content eats up the ozone layer, a sentinel designed to protect the earth’s inhabitants from harmful ultra violet rays. Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases, whether they are the principle culprit or not, harm the environment more than they help it. We, the humans of this earth, will never be able to stop climate change, as the planet itself controls much of our weather through volcanic eruptions, oscillations in the earth’s rotation, and variation in solar radiation. Exactly how much mankind influences global climate remains open to debate. The common sense approach to planetary warming takes into account that pollution causes smog, which can change weather in an urban environment; ergo, mass pollution can affect climate on a global scale. Deforestation, for example, causes the release of an unfathomable number of carbon dioxide particles into the atmosphere; unquestionably, this must shape our weather. As well, urban encroachment towards wetlands and rainforest undoubtedly changes the complexion of local weather patterns. Essentially, there does not exist a single local weather on this earth that remains local. A disturbance in the Pacific can cause a drought in the Midwest and a hurricane in the Caribbean can drastically alter temperatures in Northern Europe. This phenomenon points to the necessity of a global agreement to ensure intergovernmental co-operation on environmental issues. World leaders assembled in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, to finalize an agreement to slash greenhouse emissions by 2008-12. Governments have agreed to decrease emissions to five percent below 1990 levels. Due to an economic boom, which saw the creation of new polluting industries and factories, in actual terms this now represents a cutting of 43% on Norway’s part and 20% on that of the US. The discrepancies between actual reductions and the Kyoto targets have placed the summit an anti-business light. The agreement might not crystallize as the solution to global warming, but most activists agree that even if the cutback actions don’t significantly reduce temperatures, the agreement would still neutralize several pollution sources. Ironically, global warming itself could, over the next million or so years, obliterate enough zooplankton to dry up the world’s fossil fuels. This would lead to a search for new energy sources, other than the heavily polluting ones we use today. Hopefully, however, we will have sufficiently advanced past oil in a span of a few million years. Beyond vague prognostications involving life down the road, the question of the depletion of plankton seems critical. Plankton, which scientists estimate have declined by approximately seventy five percent in California waters, makes up the base of the marine food cycle. Temperature’s recorded upward trend, of about two degrees in waters off the coast of California, receives the blame for the substantial zooplankton decline. The abatement of these small marine animals would explain the population decrease in larger sea creatures including large whales. The problem can appear depressing and several apocalyptic scenarios have been quick to surface, but an analysis of the earth’s tendencies to move slowly towards a new situation lend credibility to the theory that we still have a significant amount of time to figure the science out. One thing remains certain; this problem will not be solved with words. Several concrete solutions exist and their implementation does not necessarily involve governments but companies and civil society. It might finally be refreshing greens who have long complained to the futileness of their actions compared with gargantuan government programs. Global warming affects everyone on the planet; however, mankind, the only living thing able to think about solving this problem, must take the initiative to ensure a safe environment for all organisms. Recognize the words “think about”. In fact we rank second in the list of environmental protectors. Plants, trees and soil currently absorb a quarter of all man-made carbon dioxide emissions. They should be our greatest allies in this struggle. Man must undertake initiatives to build sinks, named for their capability to hold carbon dioxide for a long time. Sinks, vast depositories of vegetation, could hold the key to dealing with the absorption of gigantic masses of harmful gases. We need to reforest and encourage planting of greenery, as well as stopping the process of tilling soil. Critics of sinks believe that they push the earth’s saturation point and only delay the problem without solving it. The further one understands sinks, the more they realize the detrimental effects of deforestation on our environment. To solve the climate variation problem, the world must witness a dramatic cut not only to industrial emissions but also to personal consumption. Canada remains the only industrialized country that doesn’t subsidize public transportation. Being a country that produces an abundant amount of hydroelectric energy it would seem logical to assume that Canada would have developed a viable electric car, but so far progress has been slow. The sad reality of the day remains that even weeks of energy conservation practices can be annulled by one short airplane flight, which burns an enormous amount of fossil fuel. Maybe the hippies, who trumpeted for nuclear disarmament in the sixties, seem right after all, except not in any way they expected. One rarely discussed potential cause for planetary heating could well be nuclear testing. Every time a bomb explodes a colossal amount of energy, which radiates heat, finds itself in the atmosphere or in the ocean. It appears logical that the Pacific’s temperature increased in the post war period when nuclear testing was done in the South Pacific. Underground blasts could well affect the earth’s subterranean heat conveyor system. Although it remains difficult to prove scientifically, surely, all this excess energy must mold our planet somehow. Man must outline a test ban treaty, not for any political purpose, but more importantly as an environmental raison d’être. Mankind now sprints down a dark hallway bumping into the walls, but eventually he will reach the end and realize that his path looks marked by mistakes. This remains the case for our work so far on the environment. Most agree stumbling down the hallway beats staying still and waiting for someone to illuminate the hall. Fortunately, concerned people have the opportunity to accomplish something that might bring us one step closer. Corporations and governments hold a greater power but with it comes a greater responsibility burdens them. We must awaken to the fact that we belong to the environment and that we live the environment. We have shot ourselves in the foot and we have an obligation to fix it ourselves lest we should hobble for the rest of our existence. Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Canada's Greatest Prime Minister (In French) by Arnold Engel Un des plus grands hommes dans l’histoire canadienne est souvent oublié. Il n’était pas le plus charmant ou le plus recherché, mais il a tellement contribué à notre pays. Il a infusé le Canada avec des nouvelles pensées qui continuent de nous influencer plus qu’un siècle après qu’il est venu au pouvoir. Il a été un visionnaire pour un pays dans un temps de changements. Le géant était Sir Wilfrid Laurier, et son dominion était le Canada. Né à St. Lin, dans ce qui était Canada Est, le 20 novembre 1841, Wilfrid Laurier est devenu le septième Premier ministre du Canada. Mais avant son investiture, il a traversé une longue route. Il était le fils d’un agriculteur dans la petite ville de St. Lin. Il est quand même allé à deux différentes écoles, une en franVais et l’autre en anglais sans problèmes de langue. Ses opportunités avaient multiplié quand il a été accepté à l’Université de McGill. Laurier a fini ses études en 1864, avec une citation d’avocat, et quatre ans après il s’est marié avec Zoe Lafontaine. Ces deux n’ont jamais eu des enfants. Il a ensuite travaillé pour Le Défricheur, un journal qui défendait le libéralisme au Québec, un idéal politique qui n’était pas en faveur à ce temps, surtout avec l’église. Laurier était « un rouge » dans un vaste océan de bleu. Il défendait son platform avec exubérance, et en 1871 il a été élu comme libéral à l’Assemblé National. Trois ans après, Laurier a quitté sa poste au Québec, mais une élection nationale a été proclamée en cette même année, et il a été élu comme député libéral à la Chambre des communes. Durant la première administration libérale en Canada, celle de Alexander MacKenzie, Laurier servait comme ministre de Revenu de l'intérieur. Sa défense de Louis Riel en 1885 a tourné des têtes, et ses qualités oraux l’ont bien servi. La décision du père de Laurier de l’éduquer en deux langues payait maintenant ses dividendes. En 1887, il a réussi d'être le chef du parti, et ce titre lui est resté jusqu’à sa mort en 1919. Les libéraux ont gagné l’élection en 1896, et Wilfrid Laurier est alors devenu le Premier ministre. Wilfrid Laurier a transformé en « Sir Wilfrid Laurier » à la Jubilée de Diamante, à Londres. Le premier chef d’état francophone, Laurier a essayé d’unir le Canada franVais et le Canada anglais. Après avoir vu la division du pays au sujet de Louis Riel, Laurier a mis en relief l’unité nationale. Il a complété la construction d'un deuxième chemin de fer transcontinental, qui existe même aujourd’hui, et en 1905 il a entré l’Alberta et la Saskatchewan dans la Confédération. Dans le même but, en 1898, il a mis sur pied le Territoire du Yukon. Deuxième sur sa liste de priorités était les traditions libérales de l’Angleterre. Laurier a crée le ministère du travail en 1900, pour complémenter son platform libéral. Laurier était aussi le suprême défendeur de l’autonome canadien. Il a aussi crée le ministère des Affaires extérieures en 1909, pour contrôler l’image internationale du Canada. Mais, il a envoyé les armées canadiennes au combat en Afrique de Sud, durant les années de 1899 à 1902, un signe d’amitié avec les Anglais. De plus, Laurier a augmenté le militaire canadien avec la création du Marine royale du Canada, qui assurait la continuation du militaire dans le pays. Sir Wilfrid Laurier était surtout un des meilleurs premiers ministres du Canada. Laurier reste avec nous, non seulement avec son visage sur nos billets de cinq dollars, mais avec ses visions d’un Canada uni et libre. Laurier était un canadien fier qui a mis le Canada avant tout, et qui a essayé d’inclure tous les différents peuples avec le titre « canadien ». Deux provinces et un territoire étaient réalisé pendant son temps et pendant la même période, Laurier a été le premier chef à regarder hors des frontières canadiennes. Laurier aussi a résisté contre l’amalgamation du Canada par les Anglais et les Américains. Il voyait que c’était le temps pour le progrès au Canada, et il a réalisé que seulement un Canada autonome et uni pouvaient accomplir ses buts optimistiques. Ses philosophies étaient utilisées en 1923, quand le Canada a négocié, pour la première fois sans la présence de l’Angleterre, un traité au sujet de la pêche d’halibut avec les États Unis. La même chose s’est passée quand Canada a pris la décision indépendante de déclarer de la guerre contre les Allemands au début de la Deuxième Guerre Mondial. Durant le terme que Laurier était le Premier ministre, l’immigration et la prospérité étaient hautes. Le Canada n’avait jamais connu ce type de croissance avant le temps de Laurier. Mais, il a perdu du pouvoir parce qu’il ne croyait pas en la conscription. Sur ce sujet, l’histoire est vraiment un partisan de Laurier. Toujours bien respecté, Laurier a continué de vivre sa vie politique jusqu’à la fin de ses jours. Sa popularité était immense; bien illustré par les cinquante mille personnes qui ont vu ses funérailles en 1919. Sir Wilfrid Laurier est un symbole d’unité et d’autonomie. Ses philosophies resteront toujours avec nous. In Defense of History by Arnold Engel The study of history is the study of oneself. The complexity of any given current situation may only be justly compared to one of the past. Societies study history in order to analyze the present. Policy-makers cite historical precedent when dealing with any range of economic or geopolitical issues. These are not mere coincidences – the study of history remains an essential part of our understanding of the events that occur around us. Educational administrators have unconscionably lumped the study of history into a potpourri of social sciences, when the true power of history remains in its thought applications to both broad and specific problems that surround us. It may be stated that history, contrary to popular belief, has the most far-reaching and important uses of any subject taught at the high school level. The thought process of studying history, understanding various circumstances, situations, events and their respective consequences, has numerous tangential usages. The medical profession uses “historical methods” to analyze potential future health problems by extrapolating a patient’s medical history. Actuaries utilize historical trends and data to tabulate insurance rates. In fact, the critical thinking skills that are honed at an early age in History class can serve in almost any intellectual or professional pursuit. The study of history provides an opportunity to think outside the box and to form analyses. According to the American Historical Association, “It [history] also contributes to our capacity to use evidence, assess interpretations, and analyze change and continuities.” It remains a feeble-minded view that the skill set learned in the study of history can only be applied to further historical study. A nation’s history provides a common bond between the generations. The study of history unifies the ideals of the old and young. American octogenarians are aware of the same revolutionary stories now studied by high school students. English coal-miners know the lore behind Oliver Cromwell – just as real-estate developers in greater London do. History provides society with some of its most lasting traditions. According to the Economist, “History is what makes nations what they are. It gives them their character, their institutions, their identity.” The comprehensive study of history at the high school and collegiate level can only serve to reinforce those traditions and the bond between countrymen. Every time history is learned, it is changed forever. Scholars of history bring their own interpretations to the material. Presumably, the facts of history change very little over time, whereas the interpretations can undergo sweeping shifts. History constantly revises itself through the myriad of interpretations that fall from its study. The greater the number of people who study it, the richer the history becomes, with more controversies and more themes. Essentially, we must ensure that as many people as possible are not only cognizant of their history but are able to critically examine and form their own opinions about their past. Paradoxically, history forms links and traditions, while it also enables the scholar to create their own interpretations. The subject itself represents one of the most dynamic topics in the world today. Any discussion on any historical event can be completely different depending on the frame of mind. Indeed, there are no right answers – which makes any deep or satisfying analysis of history elusive. The study of history provides a better understanding of the world. There is no comparison for the complexity of the current world situation save that of a situation of the past. Scholars of the past are therefore more adept at comprehending every minutiae of the present – and their citizenship is all the better for it. History teaches us to focus on specifics while still bearing in mind the sweeping themes and subtexts of various periods. Historians must also keep personal values in check and analyze the sentiments and morals of the time. In fact, scope and context could possibly be two of the most difficult characteristics of developing situations to analyze. In the present geopolitical landscape, it approaches impossibility to predict the eventual scope or magnitude of the tension and it is difficult to say exactly in what context the recent acts of terrorism should be examined. History provides a solid grounding in the analysis of these two important aspects. In summation, the study of history should be sacrosanct. Many life skills can be gleaned via the thorough examination of any piece of history. While we may not be proud of a part of our nation’s history, it is uniquely ours and it unifies us in mind and spirit, for what is a nation without a history? Our past links us to our present and future, so if we neglect the past, don’t we therefore forfeit our right to a future?

Info